Personal first of a grade - first ascent?

25 years ago I rap bolted and made an FA, and gave it a grade harder than anything else I had climbed, which also made it the hardest grade at this well known area. I was really nervous about that, but after 2 years went by before the 2nd ascent, I figured the grade would stick. And it did, until someone figured out a knee bar...

Over the last decade, I've climbed a dozen 'at my limit' pitches, and all but 1 I bolted (only made the FA on 1/2 those as I don't believe in closed projects, and some took 8 years to finally send). More recently I sent (FA) what I think is my hardest grade yet, and wrote it down in the upcoming guide book... (Funny thing about this climb is my wife bolted it and I told her it was a waste of bolts b/c it was way too hard for our obscure area. Then 5 yrs later a buddy was working on it, showed me the beta, and I sent a few weeks later, and he sent a few weeks after that. The holds just look soooo small though..)

So yes, get out there, put your bolts in, and work it out. You may not send this year or next, but when you push yourself on an FA, it can often be harder than you have climbed before!

Michael Schneider wrote:Hey Wolverine! That is always fun I was out in the rain here, And wanted to say hi again I'm a old guy but am a life long climber I was born a climber So I also think that some of the posts are not . . .right...So true they are opinions From good climbers but there are many ways to play this game. I have good understanding for your world stay on a rope that keeps you off the beach and rocks if you fall. Use a chest harness to keep you up right, for many years I climbed without a helmet But now I try to wear mine always, safety first! Try to climb without chalk Try to find a few different types of shoes. Get a few pairs cheap here on the Forsale thread and switch them around to make them last longer. Are you working for Marriot? Or Hilton? They often offer education here in the Us Or they did ?

No I work for myself I have a Jim and a hair salon e spa. But yes don't worrie I use protection on the long routes, about pad here no way to find them, why you say don't use chalk?

Wolverine wrote:why you say don't use chalk?

There is no good reason for him to say this. It's his personal preference and he's trying to influence you to climb like him. This part of his advice should be completely ignored.

You live in the Caribbean, you need chalk. In fact, if you can get it, you should use liquid chalk since it stays on even better. You live in a hot and humid area, chalk is essential. Some dry areas in Utah and Colorado are fine without chalk. Saint Lucia is different.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: There is no good reason for him to say this. It's his personal preference and he's trying to influence you to climb like him. This part of his advice should be completely ignored. You live in the Caribbean, you need chalk. In fact, if you can get it, you should use liquid chalk since it stays on even better. You live in a hot and humid area, chalk is essential. Some dry areas in Utah and Colorado are fine without chalk. Saint Lucia is different.

Yes you are right, in this climate is essential my hand are sweating so much,but I still don't want to give Michael to much hard time, is just he's style of climbing,plus I can get advice from everyone I'm open and new bee,,, is all good..cheers and Peace

Climbing grades are subjective.

Two grades, can do it and can't

Of course it can. So much climbing now is so safe that it is easy to push yourself to your limit. What I find impressive (it's rare) are people who push that limit when serious injury or death may occur.

snowdenroad wrote:25 years ago I rap bolted and made an FA...!

Rap botling and FAs are not the same thing.

DCohen wrote:Do you guys and gals think that your personal first of a grade (eg. your first time sending V9, 11a, whatever) can be a first ascent? Obviously the upper echelon of the climbing world can do so because they've run out of routes/problems that challenge them, so they find something that's even harder than the hardest established line. But what about us middling weekend warriors who still have plenty of established routes on which to push our limits? If you've never sent an established climb of a given grade, how can you know that your new FA is really a full grade harder than your previous hardest redpoint?

Depends on the person and circumstances.
If I am normally an onsight climber and put 3 months worth of work into a route (I put in 3 tries once on a route in 1992), I bet I can be pretty damn sure it is harder than I've ever climbed before.
I think you should logically be able to come to an answer here.
But I don't think that generalizing based on philosophy and minimal detail is going to give you an answer from this peanut gallery.

If the grade is lower than v11, it should be easy to have others confirm before publishing the grade. In my experience of new routes I tend to subtract at least one grade. So if I think it is v6 I grade it v5. Putting up new routes can require beta finding cleaning holds and unlocking. sequences which all add to the perception of difficulty

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: There is no good reason for him to say this. It's his personal preference and he's trying to influence you to climb like him. This part of his advice should be completely ignored. You live in the Caribbean, you need chalk. In fact, if you can get it, you should use liquid chalk since it stays on even better. You live in a hot and humid area, chalk is essential. Some dry areas in Utah and Colorado are fine without chalk. Saint Lucia is different.

This will be a very DRY read. . .

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion,
I am not trying to sway anyone to any 'style' of climbing.
I am trying to give a well rounded bit of advice from my own background after some time playing on rocks.

No not at all. Not a matter of style, while location is a large factor there Is some science behind what I said about - trying- to climb without chalk.
Conflicting with the experience of many my self included, I use chalk, the use of Magnesium carbonate - Chalk-
On rocks that are sea-side, or in a generally marine environment has been shown to adversely effect
Cohesion over a period of time . Thoroughly cleaning off the chalk from holds helps but. . .

Give me some time and I will try and link the studies from the '70s, '80s or '90s if I can find one
From this century I will link that one.

There is a link but it did not go to the article, directly. . .the link did not work, again. . I'll try again later.

This is less relevant and none of this addressed my concern of the marine environment and the build up of chalk over time.

"According to this, magnesium carbonate REDUCED the coefficient of friction in controlled studies. Abstract:

Magnesium carbonate, or `chalk', is used by rock climbers to dry their hands to increase the coefficient of friction, thereby improving the grip of the holds. To date, no scientific research supports this practice; indeed, some evidence suggests that magnesium carbonate could decrease the coefficient of friction. Fifteen participants were asked to apply a force with the tip of their fingers to hold a flattened rock (normal force), while a tangential force pulled the rock away. The coefficient of friction -- that is, the ratio between the tangential force (pulling the rock) and the normal force (applied by the participants) -- was calculated. Coating (chalk vs no chalk), dampness (water vs no water) and rock (sandstone, granite and slate) were manipulated. The results showed that chalk decreased the coefficient of friction. Sandstone was found to be less slippery than granite and slate. Finally, water had no significant effect on the coefficient of friction. The counter-intuitive effect of chalk appears to be caused by two independent factors. First, magnesium carbonate dries the skin, decreasing its compliance and hence reducing the coefficient of friction.

Secondly,
magnesium carbonate creates a slippery granular layer.
conclusion: that, to improve the coefficient of friction in rock climbing,

an effort should be made to remove all particles of chalk; alternative methods for drying the fingers are preferable.

Use of `chalk' in rock climbing: sine qua non or myth?. F.-X. LI, S. MARGETTS and I. FOWLER.
Journal of Sports Sciences 19.6 (June 2001): p427

If you have electronic reference through your local library, you can access it online via thomson gale reference search.

Here's the intro from the article:

Introduction

Although climbing has been practised since pre-historic times (Frison-Roche and Jouty, 1996), only recently has it become very popular; there are over 4 million climbers in the United States alone (Mermier et al., 1997). The last 30 years has witnessed a boom in rock climbing, which is now a truly international sport. The essence of this sport is to lift the body against gravity to climb on rock faces or artificial structures using only bare feet and hands. To achieve this, climbers rely entirely on an efficient, coordinated contraction of muscles associated with fine balance and, of special interest here, friction of bare feet and hands on the support.

Various aspects of rock climbing have attracted the attention of sport scientists. These include the physiological (Hardy and Martindale, 1982; Billat et al., 1995) and anthropometric (Watts et al., 1997) characteristics of climbers, the energy (Rooks, 1997; Mermier et al., 1997; Booth et al., 1999) and attentional (e.g. Bourdin et al., 1998a) demands of the sport, the biomechanical (Quaine et al., 1997) and motor-control (e.g. Nougier et al., 1993; Bourdin et al., 1998 a,b, 1999) organization of the movements, and sport-specific injuries (Bollen and Gunson, 1990; Wyatt et al., 1996; Jebson and Seyers, 1997; Rooks, 1997). Surprisingly, the grip of the hand on the rock, an essential aspect of the sport and a focal point for climbers, has not received any attention.

Magnesium carbonate, known by climbers as `chalk', is traditionally carried in a bag attached to the climber's waist. Climbers dip their hands in it to cover the fingers and, in an attempt to remove any excess deposit, climbers blow on it. Chalk has been used for years by climbers in the belief that this will dry up sweat and improve grip on the holds. Indeed, chalk has been used unquestioningly in several scientific studies (e.g. Hardy and Martindale, 1982). Applying chalk to the fingers is widely perceived as a sine qua non for a good performance. However, to date, no scientific research supports this belief.

What is the effect on grip of applying magnesium carbonate to the surface of the hands? The elements of response can be found in mechanics, tribology and neuroscience. The problem of grip is a problem of the coefficient of friction ([Mu]). When a tangential force ([F.sub.t]) is exerted on a surface, it will tend to move in the direction of the force applied. To prevent this movement, a friction force normal to the surface ([F.sub.n]) can be applied. The ratio between tangential force and normal force defines the static coefficient of friction: [Mu] = [F.sub.t]/[F.sub.n]. The coefficient is roughly constant for any pair of surfaces. The coefficient of friction can be affected by the introduction of another substance between the two surfaces; this is the way lubrication works. For instance, a layer of oil is often used to reduce the coefficient of friction between two metallic surfaces. Conversely, removing any trace of grease or humidity can increase the coefficient of friction. This has been the basis for the rationale leading to the almost unchallenged use of chalk in climbing: dry skin grips better, chalk dries the skin, so by regular application of chalk one increases the coefficient of friction between the skin on the hands and the climbing surfaces. But is it that straightforward?

For solid surfaces, friction is proportional to the normal force applied and it is independent of the surface area. However, skin -- or the stratum corneum, the outermost layer of skin -- is a compliant material. It is about 10-15 [micro]m thick. It behaves more like an elastomer or thermoplastic than a solid body (Johnson et al., 1993). The properties of this biomaterial depend on many factors, including the percentage of water, pH and temperature. Interestingly, Johnson et al. (1993) showed that the addition of water increases the friction of dry skin. It would appear that the main effect of water is to increase the compliance of the surface asperities and hence the contact area. Frequent application of chalk may decrease the percentage of water in the skin and, therefore, decrease its compliance. Moreover, Wyatt et al. (1996) found that the splitting of the skin pads of the fingertips, a common injury among climbers, is due in part to the use of chalk and its desiccating effect. It appears that, at least from a tribological and medical point of view, the overuse of chalk can have the opposite effect to that intended.

Chalk is used to remove water and sweat. Sweat is produced naturally by more than 2.5 million subcutaneous sudoriferous glands. Sweat is a hypotonic solution with a content of 99% water (Marieb, 1992). Owing to the presence of sweat and the accumulation of various greasy substances collected during the manipulation of objects, the skin can be covered by a thin slippery deposit. Johansson and Westling (1984) have shown that, immediately after washing and drying the skin, the coefficient of friction increases. Therefore, there is an advantage in drying the hands. However, Cadoret and Smith (1996) showed that applying talcum powder to the skin can decrease the coefficient of friction. Magnesium carbonate could have the same effect, so that it may not be the best way to increase the coefficient of friction.

No scientific results directly support the use of chalk in rock climbing. Indeed, some studies (Johnson et al., 1993; Cadoret and Smith, 1996; Wyatt et al., 1996) cast doubt on its usefulness. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of magnesium carbonate on the coefficient of friction and its potential interaction with dampness and type of rock. We hypothesized that chalk would not improve the coefficient of friction for already dry hands and that applying water would decrease the coefficient of friction."

There is More!?
Yes,
but my point is to try not to Gunk up the holds with chalk in an environment where sea breezes
carry moisture and can cause the holds to get slick over time.
Your Milage May Vary,
but Virgin Island climbing is something I have a small amount of experience with. .

Michael Schneider wrote: There is More!? Yes, but my point is to try not to Gunk up the holds with chalk in an environment where sea breezes carry moisture and can cause the holds to get slick over time. Your Milage May Vary, but Virgin Island climbing is something I have a small amount of experience with. .

Sorry for the self quoting. It was bedtime around here and I had some responsibilities

As to the topic, well I saw it for what it is
If you want to grade a route at a grade you have never climbed go ahead.
If you look we're talking about Boulder problems, where one tries to climb them. If one can.
A taller person or a shorter climber might find a sitting start or be able to by- pass holds.
Find a sequence that the OP did not see all leading to a differing opinion of the number grade.
I said that I don't think a number is the point of doing a FA unless you have some ego in the mix
Then DCohen, the Op, responded that it was to mitigate risk, "grades help climbers manage risk"
The only thing off topic was taking my comment to - try not using chalk-
As an opportunity to assume what my point was,
I'm a well known quantity around here, and am often held to a standard that others are not .
If you don't like me, or what I say, pass by my posts without reading them, as you have.
I like that you comment it motivates me to continue .
The length of the post is unfortunate, I was unable to add links.
This has started to get old- I stand up for myself and will continue to do so.
I use chalk
I still climb, but far less than every day, as I did for more than 20 years.

Michael Schneider wrote: This will be a very DRY read. . . highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion, I am not trying to sway anyone to any 'style' of climbing. I am trying to give a well rounded bit of advice from my own background after some time playing on rocks. No not at all. Not a matter of style, while location is a large factor there Is some science ....

Your comments have all been so, so off topic. Sheesh. Go start another thread.

Micah Klesick wrote: Your comments have all been so, so off topic. Sheesh. Go start another thread.

Maybe lock this one, Admin?

GunkieMike, Why ? Did you read what has been posted?
See up thread the conversation turned!
I responded and am responding again
Please explain why the need to be disagreeable to me, needs to be moderated?

Back on topic.....

Grading a route is subjective thing by nature.
We are trying to establish a number that 'most other climbers' would agree with.

A asked an old friend once how many 5.13's he had done over the years. He said he had done a few that were 5.13's at the time. But that there were a number of routes he helped develop originally graded 5.9 the were upgraded to 5.13. :)
So is that due to a limited pool for comparison or just a healthy dose of the Yosemite sandbag?

Personally, when I am working a new line I feel connected to it in a totally different way than an established route because it was something that called to me to be climbed and I spent all kinds of time cleaning and working it, as a result my perception of the grade is nothing like the established route.

I have a few FA's in mind that at the time were right at my limit at the time. After much discussion with friends who had tried them we said lets give it 5.X.
Then we had someone else outside our group come and try it. 10 ft off the ground hanging on the rope he was telling us we needed to adjust our scale, no way is it 5.X.

So yes a new climb could be graded at/above your limit.

I have the FA for at least a dozen V0 (i think anyway who knows if they have been climbed before), and a ton of FSA (first sock assent, you know climbing in socks make it harder than climbing barefoot).

The problem is it is hard to say if a route has been climbed before. There are plenty of areas that probably have FAs who are not really the FA for the route, just noone knew it was climbed before etc so whoever put it down on paper first is the "FA".

Michael Schneider wrote:GunkieMike, Why ? Did you read what has been posted? See up thread the conversation turned! I responded and am responding again Please explain why the need to be disagreeable to me, needs to be moderated?

Micah is the one who criticized you, not me. I was suggesting that maybe he ought to act if he was as bothered as his comment (to you) seems to indicate.

Then by all means GunkieMike , If I woe you, I apologize, & happy Halloween!